Hearing master reviews proposal to add VA community living center in Seffner amid strong community debate

Hearing master Pamela Jo Hatley presided over a contested major modification and companion comprehensive plan amendment on Feb. 18, 2025, when an applicant requested a second development option for a 14.42-acre site at North Kingsway Road and U.S. Highway 92 in Seffner to allow a Veterans Administration Community Living Center (CLC). The applicant presented the CLC as an alternative to the site’s existing commercial entitlement.

The proposal would add an assisted‑living/nursing complex and reduce vehicle trip generation compared with the currently approved general commercial option, the applicant’s attorney Todd Pressman said; development services recommended approval subject to conditions that would, among other limits, cap nursing facility square footage and bed count. Planning commission staff found the modification inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and raised scale and neighborhood‑compatibility concerns.

Why it matters: The site abuts single‑family neighborhoods and Burnett Middle/High School, and the county’s land‑use policies require new nonresidential development adjacent to residential areas to be sensitive in scale, appearance and buffering. Supporters said the CLC would meet a countywide need for veteran care and generate fewer trips than the presently approved commercial uses; opponents said the proposed building size and height and requested waivers make the option out of scale with adjacent homes.

What the record shows: Pressman said the applicant offered an enhanced minimum setback and restricted building height compared with other options on the PD, explaining the applicant proposed a minimum 50‑foot building setback from residential property and a maximum 35‑foot building height with the ability to increase height to 50 feet as setbacks increase. Development services identified two conditions limiting intensity: a maximum of 206 beds and a 50,000‑square‑foot cap on the nursing facility component; staff also noted the proposal would be limited to a facility operated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Planning commission staff concluded the proposed single 200,000‑square‑foot building at 50 feet would be “out of scale” with adjacent single‑family development and inconsistent with several comprehensive‑plan policies on neighborhood protection and design.

Supporters and opponents: The record includes a letter from Tom Fletcher, identified as secretary of the Veterans Council of Hillsborough County and chair of related veteran committees, stating “we cannot understate the need and demand that service for this facility would provide our outstanding veterans.” Representatives of the Central Hillsborough County Chamber’s Military Affairs Committee and several veterans spoke in favor of the CLC, saying Hillsborough County has a large veteran population that lacks a nearby VA‑operated long‑term care facility. Nearby residents and community commenters, including Michelle Van Long, Grace McComas and Michelle Miles, opposed the application’s scale and waivers; speakers cited the absence of documentation that the VA had committed to the location, potential traffic and drainage impacts, and concerns about a 50‑foot‑high building beside single‑family lots.

Procedural status and next steps: The application has a companion comprehensive plan amendment and will be before the Board of County Commissioners at a publicly noticed CPA hearing on April 10, 2025; the hearing master will file written recommendations with the clerk within 15 working days of the meeting. No final land‑use decision was made during the hearing; the board will take the ultimate decision on the amendment and major modification at the noticed public meeting.

Context and caveats: Planning commission staff and the development services planner both acknowledged that the site’s currently approved PD option allows high‑intensity commercial uses (car sales, drive‑throughs, 24‑hour operations) and argued the CLC could be less intensive than those allowed uses. Planning commission staff said their analysis weighed the proposed building’s height, massing and design against neighborhood protections and found the request inconsistent; development services recommended approval with the stated limitations. The record includes both technical staff reports and community testimony; the applicant stated the VA operation is the intended operator, but opponents said they had not seen a formal VA commitment in the record.